"When an application uses MSXML to process XHTML, redundant retrieval requests for well-known DTD files from the W3C Web server cause XHTML parsing to fail on a Windows-based computer"

I'm going to start collecting links that represent XHTML fud because otherwise I'm just going to immediately jump in these threads and get myself in trouble.

"Note that in XHTML 1.0, the name attribute of these elements is formally deprecated, and will be removed in a subsequent version of XHTML"

RDFa moved to Recommendation status this Tuesday, October 14th, 2008. Apparently the much discussed CURIE section got rubber stamped.

An example of the confusion authors have with XHTML. :-(

"It is difficult to find a web development language today which is as misunderstood as XHTML. In the following article we’ll examine why, sort out a few concepts that frequently confuse authors, and offer practical suggestions on real–life XHTML usage." -- It gets off on the wrong foot by overemphasizing the link between HTML and SGML but otherwise presents pragmatic advice about where XHTML might be useful to you.

"It is difficult to find a web development language today which is as misunderstood as XHTML. In the following article we’ll examine why, sort out a few concepts that frequently confuse authors, and offer practical suggestions on real–life XHTML usage."

XHTML2 WG continues to assert ownership of @rel. Disappointing.

?!: "Elements and attributes in (XHTML 1, XHTML 1.1, XHTML Basic) document types belong to the XHTML namespace"

That's so amazingly bad.

Yahoo! pulls a Microsoft - taking a developing spec and renaming it for their own use. It is not really a win for anyone.

It is amazing to me how confusing this is to everyone... but I'm thankful for such a clear blog post to refer people to.

Summary of "cool" and "uncool" ideas in both specs. Don't wholly agree with either category of analysis but I have funny feeling this document will be referenced a lot in the early stages of the HTML WG.